Moss et al v. United States Secret Service et al

Filing 281

ORDER: Denying Motion for Judgment 257 ; Denying Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment 259 ; Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction 269 ; Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction 275 . Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Ordered and Signed on 03/30/2015 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

MICHAEL MOSS, et al.,
Case No. 1:06-CV -03045-CL
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATE SECRET SERVICE of
the Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.
CLARKE, Magistrate Judge
This case comes before the Court on a Motion for Entry of Judgment (#257) by the State
defendants, as well as a motion (#259) by the Federal defendants to amend the Court's Order of
Dismissal (#255) and to enter final judgment in their favor.
When an action presents multiple claims or multiple parties, a court may direct entry of a
final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, of those claims or parties "only if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Plaintiffs
argue that entry of final judgment would force them to pursue any appeals of the district court's
previous ruling while continuing to litigate the live claims at the same time. Dispositive motions
Page 1- ORDER

on the remaining live claims are due within the next few months, and it is likely that this case
will be fully resolved in the next year. Due to the complexity of this case and the long history of
interlocutory appeals spanning nearly nine years, the Court finds that the Federal and State
.
defendants will not be prejudiced by the delay of final judgment, and the Court finds that there is
just reason for such delay.
Therefore, the defendants' motions (#257, #259) are denied. The Court also declines to
amend the Order of Dismissal (#255) at this time. Federal defendants also filed two motions to
dismiss a cross claim by the Jackson County defendants. The County has filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal ofthat cross claim (#280). The Court accepts the voluntary dismissal, and
therefore the motions to dismiss (#269, #275) are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 -ORDER